Plaintiff
James Lear pro se, seeks to amend his Complaint and to add
Arturo Ruiz who allegedly was hired by Defendant as a
shuttle-only driver like Mr. Lear.[1] As set forth below the court
will deny the motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a shuttle driver in
August 2013.[2] Mr. Lear thought this employment would
entail hours of service between 45-55 hours per week with
time at home each day for adequate sleep and “family
time.”[3] Plaintiff alleges, however, that he was
eventually asked to make different delivery runs outside of
what was expected, had to greatly exceed the targeted hours
of service and was forced via re-routing to engage in
non-shuttle driver operations. For example, some of the
proposed new delivery packages exceeded 70 on-duty hours per
week and several proposed loads exceeded 1000
miles.[4] Finally, in September 2017, Mr. Lear was
“constructively discharged.”[5]

DISCUSSION

Mr.
Lear seeks to add a claim for “Negligence in Complying
with the FMCSR” (federal motor carrier safety
regulations) and a claim for disability
discrimination.[6] Plaintiff also seeks to join Aruro Ruiz
under Rule 20. According to Mr. Lear, Mr. Ruiz was also hired
by Defendant as a shuttle only driver and was
“constructively discharged” because he could not
perform regular delivery runs.

Federal
Rule 15(a)(2) provides that “[t]he court should freely
give leave when justice so requires.”[7] “The
district court has ‘wide discretion to recognize a
motion for leave to amend in the interest of a just, fair or
early resolution of litigation.'”[8] “Refusing
leave to amend is generally only justified upon a showing of
undue delay, undue prejudice to the opposing party, bad faith
or dilatory motive, failure to cure deficiencies by
amendments previously allowed, or futility of
amendment.”[9] “Although Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)
provides that leave to amend shall be given freely, the
district court may deny leave to amend where amendment would
be futile”[10]

Here,
Plaintiff's proposed claim for injury under the FMCSR is
futile because courts have found that plaintiffs do not have
a private right of action under the FMCSR.[11] Thus, the
court need not allow leave to amend for that claim.

The new
claim for disability discrimination is informative in nature
stating that contemporaneous with this action
“Plaintiffs are filing a disability discrimination
claim with the Utah Antidiscrimination and Labor Division
… with notice to the local federal office of the
EEOC.”[12] Even in construing this claim broadly as
the court is to do for pro se parties, [13] it fails to
provide sufficient facts “on which a recognized legal
claim could be based.”[14] The court will not permit this
amendment.

Rule 20
provides in relevant part that: “Persons may join in
one action as plaintiffs if: (A) they assert any right to
relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect
to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or
series of transactions or occurrences; and (B) any question
of law or fact common to all plaintiffs will arise in the
action.”[15]

Mr.
Lear argues Mr. Ruiz should be allowed to join this case
because he shares the same claims due to the same actions by
Defendant. Further, allowing Mr. Ruiz to join is in the best
interests of judicial economy and Mr. Lear is not
representing Mr. Ruiz who will also be prosecuting this
matter pro se. The court is not convinced by Plaintiff's
arguments. While there appears to be some overlap in the
experiences of Mr. Lear and Mr. Ruiz, there is not enough to
meet the standards of the first requirement of Rule 20. Mr.
Lear and Mr. Ruiz were not working closely together on a
daily basis, nor is there evidence in the record that their
experiences arise out of the “same transaction,
occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences.”[16] Rather as Plaintiff himself notes, Mr.
Lear and Mr. Ruiz “lack the means to engage legal
counsel on their behalf' and hope together to find legal
counsel.[17] This sounds more like a pooling
arrangement between two pro se parties rather than
circumstances fitting within the standards of Rule 20.

In
addition, the allegations in the proposed Amended Complaint
do not provide specificity as to the alleged misconduct
toward Mr. Ruiz. Instead, they chiefly address Mr. Lear's
allegations and only briefly mention Mr. Ruiz. In reading the
proposed Amended Complaint it appears that Mr. Ruiz is almost
an afterthought with his name being inserted intermittently
in a vailed attempt to make him part of this action. Such a
“shotgun” approach to pleadings has been severely
criticized.[18]

ORDER

Because
Mr. Lear's proposed amendment is futile and fails to meet
the standards set forth in Rule 20, the ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.